How controversial is the Quentyn being alive theory on here?

[Gilbert Green]

6 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

No.R+L=J is a different species of theory.

Well sure, there are all kinds of theories, and you can make all kinds of distinctions.  R+L=J is an identity, baby-swap, parentage type theory.

An analogous theory involving Frog might be Rhaegar + Elia = Frog (the real Baby Aegon); or Doran Martell + Mellario Blackfyre = Young Griff (the real Quentyn Martell); or both.

"Frog is Alive" is more of a fake-death type theory, such as "Jon Snow is alive" or "Sandor is alive" or "Ashara Dayne is alive", which by itself says nothing about the ultimate narrative purpose of these characters.  Being alive, by itself, merely leaves open the possibility of all kinds of narrative purposes.

6 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

The question "who is Jon Snow's mother?" is one that the books have explicitly invited us to ask, a mystery that exists within the scope of the novels themselves.

I'm not saying R+L=J is not a good theory, but you are overstating this.

The books merely raise a mystery as to who Jon's mother is:  whether Wylla or Ashara or some other girl.   The books never invite us, in any obvious way, to question the identity of his father.

R+L=J was formed by a willingness of some fans to QUESTION what the text tells us.  Which, hypothetically, should allow an R+L=J hater to accuse R+L=J theorists of ignoring/contradicting the text, just as you have leveled this accusation against "Frog is Alive".

6 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Other examples of such mysteries (some solved, some not) include:

• Why was Jon Arryn killed?
• Who hired the catspaw?
• Who is Varys working for?
• Is Aegon the real deal?
• Who poisoned the locusts?

Two of these questions are potentially tied to Frog.  Varys might be working with Doran and Mellario (Frog's supposed parents) among other people, as well as with Young Griff.  Is Young Griff real Aegon?  If not, who is?  I can think of only one other plausible candidate, and that is Frog.  Admittedly, it is also possible that the real Aegon is really dead, which I guess is the position of most "Young Griff is fake" theorists.

Some other questions the text asks are:

• Who is TPTWP?  (Aegon, per HOTU, but we're encouraged to dismiss that because Aegon is supposedly dead).
• Who are the 3 heads of the dragon? (Dany heavily hints to Frog that he could be 1 of the 3).
• Who will ride Dany's dragons?  (Dany tells Frog she will only ride one, because no rider ever rode 2; note that the converse is not true, so 3 dragons could end up with more than 3 riders if one rider dies and is replaced).
• Who is Lemore? (that she is Mellario, the supposed mom of Frog, is at least one potential answer).
• Who are the last Blackfyres through the female line?  (Frog's supposed mom Mellario is one possibility).

Now the question of who will ride Dany's dragons is particularly interesting?  When will it happen?  Since the text directly leads us to expect it, is it totally unreaonable to expect that some progress has already been made in this direction? 

I mean maybe your right.  Maybe the sole point of Frog was to have a good sob on the melancholy truths of life, and then start from scratch on Dragon-Rider No. 2 in Book 6.  But is that really the only possibility?  It's not like we have not been led to expect dragonriders.

6 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Then there are theories which address questions which we might consider the text is implicitly asking: "Why does Dany remember a lemon tree when lemons don't grow in Braavos?" "Why do Renly's eyes change colour?" "Who is the gravedigger and why is Stranger there?" and so on.

Or, who is the burnt-beyond-recognition-man, dying on Dany's bed, who everyone assumes for no particularly good reason, must be Frog?  Is it really Frog?  Seems a reasonable question.  He is, after all, burnt beyond recognition.  As with the gravedigger, it will not occur to some people to ask the question.  But once they do, it seems silly to shout them down with howls of "conspiracy theory" and "crackpot" and "tinfoil".

Okay, okay.  The text never explicitly asks that question.  But neither does the surface text invite us to wonder who the gravedigger is.  He's just a gravedigger, insofar as GRRM is determined for us to notice.

Also, the text never asks why Stranger is there.  It simply tells you why Stranger is there.  And the surface explanation works fine.  Regardless of whether Sandor is alive or not.

6 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

But craziness, or crackpot-ness, as it were, is determined by the quality of the theory itself, the evidence that can be produced in its favour, and how reasonable the theory seems based on the known facts. The Gravedigger theory, for instance, is straightforward and requires no particularly creative interpretation of the text itself. It's just an explanation that makes a lot of sense.

This theory, though, is in my view answering a question that hasn't been asked, which is different from all the above.

Both theories make sense to me.  Haters don't call "Sandor is Alive" names, like "crazy" or "crackpot".  But they could, if the same standards were applied.

You say "Frog is Alive" answers a question the text never asks?  So does "Sandor is Alive". 

And Sandor is not even a potential candidate for dragonrider or one of the 3 heads of the dragon.  At least not as far as I know.  He might be a potential candidate for dragonslayer, maybe.  But nobody expects dragonslayers.

Where are the high-quality clues in support of "Sandor is Alive", that a denialist hater could not deny, abuse, mock, and insult?

The only clue you've mentioned is the presence of Stranger; which is merely a surface detail that is 100% consistent with the surface narrative that Sandor is dead.  What did you expect the Elder Brother to do?  Leave Stranger tied to Sandor's cairn?

6 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

It's the only actually substantive point I've seen raised that suggests there is any kind of mystery here to be solved. Everything else is in service of answering the question the ambiguity here supposedly presents.

As a historical matter, at least, that is not correct.  This theory can be traced to a post on this forum in January 2012, that did not, at least at first, even mention the specific ambiguity you have in mind.

The elephant in the room is that GRRM throws a burnt-beyond-recognition-man at the readers and asks them to assume it was Frog, simply because other characters (for no particular good reason) assume it is Frog. 

Another early "clue" cited was that Tatters and Frog were vaguely similar in height and build.  This is roughly on the level of the "Sandor is Alive" clue that Sandor and the Gravedigger are maybe, in a vague way, roughly similar in size.

6 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

A number of supposed gaps in the narrative have been pointed out but they're only gaps in the narrative if you think there's a reason to look for gaps in the first place.

BURNT  BEYOND  RECOGNITION

Sounds like a reason to me.

Once we notice this, we look at the gaps to see if there is room for Mr. BBR-Man to be someone other than Frog

Guess what?  There is.  GRRM left plenty of room.  And clues pointing to a suspect for BBR-Man other than Frog.

6 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

If there is some other big flashing question-mark for us to investigate then by all means point it out but I haven't seen one mentioned.

Prince BBR-Man is     burnt    beyond     recognition !!!  Looks like a big flashing question mark to me.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

5 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

You say "now GRRM has confirmed Lemongate" as if this is a recent development.

Dance was released in July, 2011.  Lemongate (though not by that name) was originated (maybe) by Yolkboy in March 2013.  The term "Lemongate" arose in late 2014 or early 2015, apparently in posts on this forum that have since been deleted. The earliest surviving references to Lemongate were in May 2015.   GRRM confirmed Lemongate (though not by that name) in August 2015.  The resulting cognitive dissonanance of the anti-lemon crowd was interesting to read, as were their pre-confirmation remarks.

I recently researched the origins of the term "Lemongate", and posted my findings in the most recent "Lemongate" threads. 

[Nevets]

@Gilbert Green So now we have two reasons to believe that the burnt body isn't Quentyn Martell.  The first is that it's the Tattered Prince, or some other Mr. X.  The second is that it's not Quentyn Martell because Quentyn Martell isn't Quentyn Martell.  A theory that has even less to recommend it than the one we're discussing (i.e., nothing).  Any more wild revelations for us so that we can properly discuss this theory in its entirety? 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Nevets

[Gilbert Green]

5 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

I am not convinced by any of the points that have been raised in support of the theory. I think I have made that clear.

That's not the problem.  The problem was your claim that only one point had been raised in support of the theory.   Suggests, at the very least, that you are not interested, not paying attention.  (But somehow very invested).

Tell you what.  Why don't you list the points in favor of Sandor is A)live.  Then I will list the points in favor of Frog is Alive.  Then you can explain, without employing any blatant bias or double-standards, how your points are cream of the crop, and my points are dross of the dregs.

(Personally, I think they are both good theories).

[Gilbert Green]

17 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Do now we have two reasons to believe that the burnt body isn't Quentyn Martell.  The first is that it's the Tattered Prince, or some other Mr. X.  The second is that it's not Quentyn Martell because Quentyn Martell isn't Quentyn Martell.

The theory that Jon Snow is alive (and not stabbed to death) is a separate theory than the theory that the Jon Snow we know is not the same person as the Jon Snow who was Wylla's baby.  Both could be dead, or one could be dead, or the other could be dead, or neither could be dead.

Similarly,

The theory that the Frog is alive (and not the crispy BBRM on Dany's bed), is a different theory than that the Frog we know is not really Mellario's son.

I took no position on the latter question.  It could be that Frog IS Mellario's son, hence his secret Blackfyre heritage, hence his ability to tame Viserion.  Or maybe Mellario isn't even a Blackfyre, and Frog gets all of his "blood of the dragon" from his distant ancestor Danaerys.

Except, why is Mellario spending so much time in Northern Essos, in the general vicinity of another young lad of just about the same age named Young Griff.  I thought she was UPSET about being separated from Quentyn.  If she's so mad at Doran about this, why not spend more time visiting the Yronwoods?

Edited July 26, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

Incidentally, here is (I think) the "original" Quentyn is Alive" theory by Bran Vras.  It is obviously a very different theory fro the "Quentyn is Alive" theory of Fearsome Fred or Preston Jacobs, raising different questions.

It is partly because I am aware of this theory that I prefer to say "Frog is Alive".  There is no ambiguity about who Frog is.  And it leaves open the question of whether Frog is the real Quentyn.

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

29 minutes ago, Nevets said:

A theory that has even less to recommend it than the one we're discussing (i.e., nothing).  Any more wild revelations for us so that we can properly discuss this theory in its entirety? 

I'd just like to know your opinions on certain mysteries suggested by the text.  Who are the 3 heads of the dragon?  Who is TPTWP?  Who do you think will be the first people, if anyone, to ride Viserion and Rhaegal?   Is Young Griff fake?  Is so, then who is he really?  If so, is the real Aegon dead?  And what is Young Griff's connection, if any, to Doran, Mellario, Lemore, Serra, Varys, Illyrio and/or the Golden Company?  Who is Lemore?

Do you have answers to these questions or do you merely prefer to spit venom at those who like to ponder the possiblities?

[Gilbert Green]

@Nevets, I would like to also add that in my opinion we can indeed discuss whether Frog is alive without discussing thorny issues of his ultimate narrative purpose, if any.   But others keep bringing up that issue, so it is only fair to point out how wide open and thorny it is.

[Sandy Clegg]

6 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

If there is some other big flashing question-mark for us to investigate then by all means point it out but I haven't seen one mentioned.

6 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

I tend to prefer straightforward explanations that make minimal assumptions not in the text than great convoluted ones with a lot of speculative moving parts.

If I can step back a little from the main Quentyn topic for a second, before getting back to it. This is the reasonable stance that most people on this forum take, I believe, and it serves well for filtering out the huge majority of tinfoil cases. Most people here will abide by this very principle, looking for the "big flashing question mark" to investigate. It's actually  a very apt image for the vast majority of thinking on this forum. We all want to apply some standards of rigour. But how "big" or "flashing" that question mark needs to be in order to pursue it - that's the controversial point. How do we address this in a civilised way?

To that end, I've become increasingly interested, recently, in George's own remarks on his methods of embedding mysteries in the books. And I always come back to these two quotes:

Quote

At least one or two readers had put together the extremely subtle and obscure clues that I’d planted in the books and came to the right solution

- 2014 Interview

Quote

So what do I do when I plant the seed? Well, I plant the seed but I try to do a little literary ‘sleight of hand’. And while I'm planting the seed, my other hand is up there waving -  and is distracting you with some flashy bit of wordplay, or something that's going on in the foreground, while the seed is being planted in the background

 - 2006 Podcast

How can we resolve George's description of 'subtle and obscure' clues and planting seeds 'in the background' with the idea of 'big flashing question marks'? I think we can at least agree that there may be a variety of question marks, of all shapes and sizes. Some flashing, some honking an air horn, some peeking out of from behind a bush, some hidden in the clouds that turn out to be just clouds. Some only visible through ultraviolet light in a darkened room? We don't know how obscure George is going. 

I've read those Quentyn and Barristan chapters again, twice now, and I'm still not sure whether there's enough to support Frog's survival, even taking @Gilbert Green's  detailed support into account. Once I read them with his survival in mind, though, it did colour my thinking and make me notice things I might otherwise not have. It's a weird one. George has really pushed 'subtle' to the limits with Quentyn. 

I might post my re-read thoughts later today if I get time. They're still massively non-conclusive, but some nice tidbits in there I hope.

[Nevets]

2 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

The theory that Jon Snow is alive (and not stabbed to death) is a separate theory than the theory that the Jon Snow we know is not the same person as the Jon Snow who was Wylla's baby.  Both could be dead, or one could be dead, or the other could be dead, or neither could be dead.

Similarly,

The theory that the Frog is alive (and not the crispy BBRM on Dany's bed), is a different theory than that the Frog we know is not really Mellario's son.

I took no position on the latter question.  It could be that Frog IS Mellario's son, hence his secret Blackfyre heritage, hence his ability to tame Viserion.  Or maybe Mellario isn't even a Blackfyre, and Frog gets all of his "blood of the dragon" from his distant ancestor Danaerys.

Except, why is Mellario spending so much time in Northern Essos, in the general vicinity of another young lad of just about the same age named Young Griff.  I thought she was UPSET about being separated from Quentyn.  If she's so mad at Doran about this, why not spend more time visiting the Yronwoods?

Where does it say he was burned beyond recognition?  It mentions his lips were burned off, and some skull could be seen.  

Quote

The old knight peeled back the coverlet for one last look at Quentyn Martell's face, or what remained of it.  So much of the prince's face had sloughed away you could see the skull beneath.  His eyes were pools of pus.

Nothing about how the injuries rendered his face unrecognizable.  If GRRM wants us to know the face is unrecognizable he should say so.

There is also this

Quote

When he raised the lash he saw it was burning.  So was his hand.  All of him, all of him was burning.

Also, Archibald's hands, and nothing else, are badly burnt.  How is Quentyn supposed to get out of that?  I see plenty of reasons to believe he's dead, and none to suspect his survival.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Nevets

[SeanF]

Quentyn’s dead, no doubt of it.

Arianne’s train of thought, in TWOW, makes no sense otherwise.  Arianne hopes that her brother won’t return alive;  is ashamed of that hope;  resents Daenerys for “allowing” Viserys to die;  and projects her own guilt and shame onto Daenerys, branding her a kinslayer.

Quentyn’s death therefore let’s Arianne off the hook, in her own mind.

[Gilbert Green]

2 hours ago, Nevets said:

Where does it say he was burned beyond recognition?  It mentions his lips were burned off, and some skull could be seen. 

What part of his face to you imagine was unaltered and recognizable?  His ears?  His nose?  Even where the flesh had not completely sloughed away, leaving the skull visible, do you think the flesh that remained was unscathed, and unaffected by blistering, scorshing, skin loss, infection, pus?   Dude.  He had NO EYES.  And NO LIPS.  And HIS SKULL WAS VISIBLE.  And these injuries were not inflicted by a precision instrument, like a hot poker.  His entire face is in varying degrees of messed up.  Including, I am sure, his nose and ears.

Let's put it this way.  His face is HUGELY more injured than was that of Whitney Cerak.   And Barristan is not even Frog's mom.  If Laura Van Ryn's mom could not tell Whitney Cerak from her own daughter, because of some mild facial swelling and despite a 4-inch height difference, what the hell do you expect from poor Barristan?

GRRM does not have to say "his face was unrecognizable" in so many words.  That would be too obvious.  But he can say it indirectly in a way that might not be so obvious as to set off his reader's alarm bells.  And he did.

How far does GRRM have to go before we infer that the face was unrecognizable?  If he said "nothing left at all but the skull which was smashed to powder", would you say "sure, but he did not actually say it was unrecognizable"?

Edited July 26, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Springwatch]

15 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I already explained the point.  You ignored it an are now talking past me.  That's a hater game.  Please don't play hater games.   If you're not interested in discussion, find a theory that interests you more.  It's only a theory.  If you are so sure the theory is wrong, then you've got nothing to worry about.  And if you are so sure the theory is ultimately wrong, then there is surely no harm in acknowledging points raised by your adversaries.

No, no, that's not what I meant at all. That last comment of mine applied to A&G - they've been left behind; they have no knowledge of where Quent will go or what he'll do, and they can't expect he won't be seen, so claiming he's dead is a stupid scheme. It's just possible they were stupid and did it anyway, but it's one more improbable event in a whole chain of improbable events, all accumulating to a practical impossibility that Quent is alive.

So the difference between us is that you (and others) find this stuff clever and entertaining - tracing the tiny opportunities between the huge obstacles, looking for subtle, slippery clues, building a case for the million-to-one chance. I don't feel that way. To me it's just jumping the shark, lame and lazy. You bet I don't want it.

15 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Seriously, is that not a fair answer to your objection?   I'm not asking you to concede the theory is true.  Just give an inch.  Just so I know you're not a hater.  Because there is little point in fighting with haters.  Waste of their time.  Waste of mine.

Give you an inch, you'll take a mile, I'm sure. No, it doesn't answer my objection, because too many ifs. If Quentyn could tame a dragon. Go through fire mostly uninjured. Ride unseen past all the guards and inhabitants of the pyramids and city, and remain hidden. If A&G could know this.

I'm not a hater by the way, I like speculation and well-imagined theories. But you could find a better one for your talents than this. Oh, and stop calling people haters.

[Alester Florent]

6 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Well sure, there are all kinds of theories, and you can make all kinds of distinctions.  R+L=J is an identity, baby-swap, parentage type theory.

An analogous theory involving Frog might be Rhaegar + Elia = Frog (the real Baby Aegon); or Doran Martell + Mellario Blackfyre = Young Griff (the real Quentyn Martell); or both.

"Frog is Alive" is more of a fake-death type theory, such as "Jon Snow is alive" or "Sandor is alive" or "Ashara Dayne is alive", which by itself says nothing about the ultimate narrative purpose of these characters.  Being alive, by itself, merely leaves open the possibility of all kinds of narrative purposes.

I'm not saying R+L=J is not a good theory, but you are overstating this.

The books merely raise a mystery as to who Jon's mother is:  whether Wylla or Ashara or some other girl.   The books never invite us, in any obvious way, to question the identity of his father.

R+L=J was formed by a willingness of some fans to QUESTION what the text tells us.  Which, hypothetically, should allow an R+L=J hater to accuse R+L=J theorists of ignoring/contradicting the text, just as you have leveled this accusation against "Frog is Alive".

Yes, you can slice and dice the theories a number of ways. Whether it's a fake death theory or a secret identity theory or whatever is not relevant to the distinction I'm making, which is what the originating textual basis is for beginning to theorise at all.

You're right that the text does not explicitly invite us to speculate on Jon's father's identity. The question asked is "who is Jon's mother?" and the answer posited is Lyanna. R+L=J is really a subset of the "Lyanna is Jon's mother" theory family, but follows a reasonable chain of reasoning from the initial question.

It is still speculative, but it has its origin point in a textual question and follows the clues from that point onwards.

I do not believe that any similar question exists regarding Quentyn's identity, either before his death or after it. 

Quote

Two of these questions are potentially tied to Frog.  Varys might be working with Doran and Mellario (Frog's supposed parents) among other people, as well as with Young Griff.  Is Young Griff real Aegon?  If not, who is?  I can think of only one other plausible candidate, and that is Frog.  Admittedly, it is also possible that the real Aegon is really dead, which I guess is the position of most "Young Griff is fake" theorists.

If Young Griff is not Aegon, then the real Aegon is surely dead. 

Quote

 

Some other questions the text asks are:

• Who is TPTWP?  (Aegon, per HOTU, but we're encouraged to dismiss that because Aegon is supposedly dead).
• Who are the 3 heads of the dragon? (Dany heavily hints to Frog that he could be 1 of the 3).
• Who will ride Dany's dragons?  (Dany tells Frog she will only ride one, because no rider ever rode 2; note that the converse is not true, so 3 dragons could end up with more than 3 riders if one rider dies and is replaced).
• Who is Lemore? (that she is Mellario, the supposed mom of Frog, is at least one potential answer).
• Who are the last Blackfyres through the female line?  (Frog's supposed mom Mellario is one possibility).

Now the question of who will ride Dany's dragons is particularly interesting?  When will it happen?  Since the text directly leads us to expect it, is it totally unreaonable to expect that some progress has already been made in this direction? 

 

Anything to do with prophecies and riddles is, I think, a slightly different area because it's unlikely some of these questions will ever be answered definitively: there is probably a large amount of subjectivity in their initial recitation and revelation. I think these make more sense as clues to the future path of the narrative and, more so, motivations for characters' actions than they do as mysteries with a clear and demonstrable solution. But there's no harm in theorising.

You're right though that there are questions I didn't mention above; I didn't intend for it to be an exhaustive list.

I myself am not sure that the "who are the remaining Blackfyres?" question is one the text is posing explicitly. It may be an implicit question, because we're told "extinct in the male line" but I don't know that this is a question the text is asking any more than "who is the heir of house Baratheon when Stannis dies?" The Blackfyres, qua Blackfyres, are to date much less relevant to the story than the Baratheons and are mentioned much less. 

The speculation on the female line of the Blackfyres is an outgrowth of the (explicit) questions about Varys, Aegon and Illyrio and their agenda, I think, rather than an independent mystery. 

 

Quote

Or, who is the burnt-beyond-recognition-man, dying on Dany's bed, who everyone assumes for no particularly good reason, must be Frog?  Is it really Frog?  Seems a reasonable question.  He is, after all, burnt beyond recognition.  As with the gravedigger, it will not occur to some people to ask the question.  But once they do, it seems silly to shout them down with howls of "conspiracy theory" and "crackpot" and "tinfoil".

You see, I don't think the text really is asking that question. 

The person you call BBRM is not presented as "a body burned beyond recognition, who is claimed to be Quentyn Martell". He is presented as "Quentyn Martell, burned beyond recognition". There is a difference and it's not just semantics. 

And if we ignore the explicit conflation of the two by the text and by every character in the text, if we treat BBRM's identity as a mystery and speculate as to his identity, by far the most logical conclusion is "Quentyn Martell". 

 

I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of the gravedigger theory. I have no particular investment in that theory and it's not what this thread is about.

 

Quote

The elephant in the room is that GRRM throws a burnt-beyond-recognition-man at the readers and asks them to assume it was Frog, simply because other characters (for no particular good reason) assume it is Frog. 

It is not for "no good reason". It is for very good reason.

Consider the circumstantial evidence alone:

• The body was found exactly where Quentyn was or would have been
• The body displays the same injuries as Quentyn would have suffered having been burned by dragonfire
• Quentyn's best friend was found cradling the body
• The available witnesses (to put the theory at its strongest) do not give any indication that the body is not Quentyn
• The witnesses later state to Barristan that there were only four people present after the Windblown fled: Quentyn, Gerris, Arch and one dead, burned person who we know to have been the crossbowman burned by Viserion

That is just information available to the characters who weren't even there to see it happen. But we did see it happen. We saw Quentyn burn, from his own point of view.

The way the narrative structure works with POVs and all, we don't see any characters confirmedly die from their own POV, because by necessity they are still conscious (and therefore alive) when the POV ends. But nobody is seriously arguing that Ned is still alive, or Kevan, or Merrett Frey, or Maester Cressen. It is always possible that something swooped in to save them at the last second, somehow, or they miraculously survived their injuries. But it's very unlikely, given (firstly) the nature of the injuries and (secondly) the way other characters react (Kevan excepted, since we haven't seen a post-Kevan chapter yet, but nobody seems to believe he's alive). 

It's the same with Quentyn. We see him suffer extensive and ongoing burns. Cut to a body in the same place as Quentyn had been, displaying matching injuries and his friends being upset over that body. 

If this were a movie or TV series rather than a book, nobody reasonable would be questioning this identification or the editorial choices. A discreet cut-away-from-the-horribly-graphic-injury is pretty standard. 

Quote

 

BURNT  BEYOND  RECOGNITION

Sounds like a reason to me.

 

It's never actually made explicit that he is burnt beyond recognition. I mean, he probably is, from the descriptions, but, as above, we are not given a BBRM and invited to assume it's Quentyn: we are given Quentyn and told that he is disfigured from burns. The former explicitly invites speculation. The latter doesn't.

And if GRRM is inviting the question, I would expect him to invite the question. I'd expect something, from some of the characters, at least expressing some kind of doubt. Missandei, maybe, talking to Barristan as if there's something curious about her patient. Barristan or one of the council mentioning that they are assuming it's the prince based on Gerris and Arch's say-so. An allusion to how Gerris and Arch were a bit shifty and evasive after they were arrested. We get none of this. Nobody questions Quentyn's identity because nobody has any cause to do so. And that goes, for me, out of character as well as in-character.

And no, I don't agree that Gerris and Arch asking to discuss the offer of a potential suicide mission privately before agreeing to it is at all sketchy on their part or reason for any suspicion that they're hiding something. If anything, the weird thing in that conversation is not their asking, but Barristan saying no, without giving a reason why.

[Springwatch]

15 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

It's not just that.  It's that Frog faced down Viserion, and struck Viserion full in the face with a whip, and yelled at Viserion, and Viserion did not instantly kill Frog.

No, Viserion's response was not unambiguously friendly.  Not quite the reaction of a timid whipped puppy.  But it was better than the response Dany got when she struck Drogon full in the face with a whip.  You want me to draw up the quotes so we can compare Viserion's reaction to Drogon's reaction?

Of course.

15 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I'm not the only one who got the impression that Frog was making progress with Viserion.  Many people who believe Frog is dead have reached the same conclusion.  Even those who believe that Frog is dead believe that it was Rhaegal, and not Viserion, who fatally injured him.

He DID turn his back on the dragon he hit in the face with a whip.  And we actually don't know which dragon set him on fire.  Rhaegal only hit him with "furnace wind".  I tend to agree that it was probably Rhaegal who set Frog on fire, but that's only because I had the impression that Frog was making progress with Viserion.  Which you just denied.

Not much progress. Viserion looked at him and hissed. Well Drogon looked at Dany and hissed, and then spat fire at her. Dany gave Drogon many more blows of the whip before he submitted, which he showed physically by folding his wings and lying down. Viserion doesn't do that. There wasn't time, because Rhaegal arrived in that instant.

15 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.  Yes, obviously things are going according to the original plan. 

But the scene ends at this point, and we don't actually know what happened next.  GRRM has deliberately created a gap in the action.  And he can fill in that gap when the future-reveal occurs.

Man on fire between two angry dragons. What happens next? There actually is no gap that needs filling; we can fill it ourselves, no effort. But producing Quentyn alive would need masses of exposition; not really GRRM's style.

15 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Frog does not seem to be a mad pyromaniac.  And maybe that's a good thing.  On the other hand, when he sleeps, he does dream of fire and blood.  See text.

Please!

I bet he didn't enjoy it. Quentyn's elemental nature is mud not fire.

15 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Rhaegal and Viserion fight all the time.  What's so implausible about Viserion attacking Rhaegal after Rhaegal attacks Frog?   For all we know Viserion would have done the same for Brown Ben Plumm.  It need not imply a complete and instant dragon bond. 

Problem is that Quent is standing right between them.

15 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Yes, Dany did hint to Frog that he could become a dragonrider.  That's what you challenged me to prove and that's what I have proven.

She didn't. She never thought he was the type. She hinted she would bring her dragons to the Dornish rebellion against the IT. Quent read too much into it.

15 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

No, Dany did not invite Frog to conspire with her enemies to put the dragons on a ship and sail away with them.  So Barristan is perfectly within his rights to place them all under arrest and treat them as enemies of his queen.  And Archie and Gerris know this.

Which is exactly why Archie and Gerris would not be too quick to tell Barristan that Frog is still at large.  But you seem to forget that when convenient.  But now you are shoving it in my face as if it were inconsistent with my position.  Which it is not.

If Quent left on the back of a dragon (I can't believe I'm writing this), A&G might expect him to fly away. They would expect him to be seen. Nothing suggests faking his death would help.

[Gilbert Green]

6 hours ago, Springwatch said:

No, no, that's not what I meant at all. That last comment of mine applied to A&G - they've been left behind; they have no knowledge of where Quent will go or what he'll do, and they can't expect he won't be seen, so claiming he's dead is a stupid scheme.  It's just possible they were stupid and did it anyway, but it's one more improbable event in a whole chain of improbable events, all accumulating to a practical impossibility that Quent is alive.

It's not stupidity.  It's loyalty.   If you betray your friends, merely because they might get caught anyway, you are not very loyal.  Criminals rat each other all the time, giving rise to the expression, "there's no honor among thieves".   But I find it perfectly plausible that Archie and Gerris have a bit more loyalty than that.

Refusing (or hestitating) to talk is a natural reaction if you are loyal.  Which is one reason why it may have been the Guards who decided that BBR-Man was Frog.  "Not talking?  Fine.  Be that way!  WE know who you are.  We were there when the three of you appeared before the Queen."

It's night time.  They DON'T know that he is going to be seen, and they CERTAINLY don't know he is going to be recognized.  It is not as though he does not have a mask to wear.  They DO know he is trying to tame a dragon -- he made that clear before the chapter ended, and moreover, there was, as far as we know, additional time to exchange further words before he left. 

And if they don't know exactly where he will go or what he will do, how can they possibly assume he will be seen?  Seen doing what?   He does not necessarily HAVE to ride Viserion the whole time.  It is possible to dismount.  GRRM will supply the details, and he has left himself plenty of room for all kinds of scenarios.

The two were not even tortured.  They were nabbed, thrown in a cell, and left alone together to coordinate their stories.

6 hours ago, Springwatch said:

So the difference between us is that you (and others) find this stuff clever and entertaining - tracing the tiny opportunities between the huge obstacles, looking for subtle, slippery clues, building a case for the million-to-one chance. I don't feel that way. To me it's just jumping the shark, lame and lazy. You bet I don't want it.

So why not find another thread?  I'm not here to upset you.  And if you were "merely unconvinced", it would not upset you.  You would just smile bemusedly and move on to another thread.

I didn't even start this thread.  So you can't even blame me. 

6 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Give you an inch, you'll take a mile, I'm sure.

 

That's very strategic of you.   You talk as though you are at war.  Which you are, I guess.

Take a few deep breaths and repeat after me.

IT IS ONLY A THEORY

IT IS ONLY A THEORY

IT IS ONLY A THEORY

IT IS ONLY A THEORY

6 hours ago, Springwatch said:

No, it doesn't answer my objection, because too many ifs. If Quentyn could tame a dragon. Go through fire mostly uninjured. Ride unseen past all the guards and inhabitants of the pyramids and city, and remain hidden. If A&G could know this.

You could have given an inch, and acknowledged my point.  And still raised these objections.  But a hater will never give an inch, or acknowledge anything an opponent says.  It is war to them.

6 hours ago, Springwatch said:

I'm not a hater by the way, I like speculation and well-imagined theories. But you could find a better one for your talents than this. Oh, and stop calling people haters.

@Craving Peaches, I offer you Exhibit D.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

You're right that the text does not explicitly invite us to speculate on Jon's father's identity. The question asked is "who is Jon's mother?" and the answer posited is Lyanna. R+L=J is really a subset of the "Lyanna is Jon's mother" theory family, but follows a reasonable chain of reasoning from the initial question.

I think you are moving away from questions the text more-or-less directly asks and into fuzzier and more subjective areas, such as whether certain subtle clues, and the inferences drawn therefrom, are "reasonable".   I don't think this is a helpful.

Clues supporting popular theories are always reasonable.  Clues supporting hated theories are always unreasonable. 

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

I do not believe that any similar question exists regarding Quentyn's identity, either before his death or after it. 

If Young Griff is not Aegon, then the real Aegon is surely dead.

 

My only point is that there are all kinds of theories.  Let's get back on point.  The theory under discussion is whether the Quentyn we know as "Frog" is alive.  We are not debating his parentage or ancestry.  Those are separate theories.

The text explicitly raises the question of whether Frog can ride one of Dany's dragons.  And it appeals to his Targaryen heritage through a remote ancestor named Daenerys.  Let's stay there for now (ignoring whether he is actually Elia's son Aegon; or whether he also has Blackfyre heritage through his mom Mellario; or whether he is secretly a nobody with no Targ blood at all).

The point is, the question is asked.  And his last POV chapter was even called "The Dragontamer".    Feel free to argue that that title does not guarantee that he actually WILL tame a dragon.  But can you really say that it does not even ask the question?  What was the point of Dany dragging him down to the dragonpit to kiss him in front of her dragons while mouthing "the dragon has 3 heads" and "no rider ever flew 2 dragons"?

I mean, the text has led us to anticipate dragonriders, does it not?  Has not GRRM hinted that a "second dance of the dragons" is coming? 

I think it is very arbitrary to say that a question has not been raised, that anticipates SOMEBODY succeeding in riding a dragon.  And if that did not happen in Book 5, I guess GRRM is going to have to start from scratch in Book 6.

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Anything to do with prophecies and riddles is, I think, a slightly different area because it's unlikely some of these questions will ever be answered definitively: there is probably a large amount of subjectivity in their initial recitation and revelation. I think these make more sense as clues to the future path of the narrative and, more so, motivations for characters' actions than they do as mysteries with a clear and demonstrable solution. But there's no harm in theorising.

Prophesies, at the very least, ask questions, that the readers are invited to ponder.  Sure, they could be smoke, mirrors and red herrings.  But you are the one making an issue of "questions that haven't been asked".   And I am saying that certain questions have indeed been asked.

Yes, there is no harm in theorizing.  And "Frog is Alive" is a theory.

"Who are the 3 heads of the dragon" is a question the text asks.  Even more specifically "Is Frog one of the 3 heads of the dragon and/or a dragonrider?" is another questions the text asks.  (And by seeming to burn him alive, seems to answer the question "NO!".  But that could be smoke and mirrors.  And anyway, the question was indeed asked).

The clues are not so subtle in this case.  Come on.  Those facial injuries are damned severe. 

 

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

You see, I don't think the text really is asking that question. 

The person you call BBRM is not presented as "a body burned beyond recognition, who is claimed to be Quentyn Martell". He is presented as "Quentyn Martell, burned beyond recognition". There is a difference and it's not just semantics.

I agree that GRRM does not want us to notice the question.  He is planning to surprise us, so he is none too eager to alert us to the problem.  But he has none the less planted subtle clues so he can claim he has played fair. 

See the  quotes helpfully provided by @Sandy Clegg.

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

And if we ignore the explicit conflation of the two by the text and by every character in the text, if we treat BBRM's identity as a mystery and speculate as to his identity, by far the most logical conclusion is "Quentyn Martell".

If we realize there IS a mystery, and that GRRM has plonked one candidate before us; and left the other candidate lurking in the shadows behind subtle clues, then literary logic says the BBRM's identity is the surprise identity, and not the identity GRRM plonked straight in front of us and asked us to assume.  Smoke and mirrors.  Once you notice them, it is hard to pretend you did not see them.

Yes, GRRM did not explicitly raise a question as to BBRM's identity, by failing to explicitly say "Nobody could tell if BBRM was Frog or not - can you guess, dear readers, if he is really Frog?".  That would be too obvious. 

People make assumptions and see what they expect to see.  GRRM has set up just such a situation.  People expect that man caught with Dornishman #2 and Drornishman #3 must be Dornishman #1.  GRRM invites the readers to make the same assumption.  Because he is setting us up.

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of the gravedigger theory. I have no particular investment in that theory and it's not what this thread is about.

You wanted to go down the rabbit hole of comparing theories.  If you do, I think "Sandor is Alive" is the closest analogy to "Frog is Alive". 

And I think "Sandor is Alive" is a good theory.  But the evidence would not be compelling to a hater (if there were any haters).  The evidence is not that "compelling". 

And I don't think "Sandor is Alive" survives your "answering a question the text asks" test, unless you stretch that test to ridiculous levels of fuzzy subjectivity.

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Consider the circumstantial evidence alone:

• The body was found exactly where Quentyn was or would have been
• The body displays the same injuries as Quentyn would have suffered having been burned by dragonfire
• Quentyn's best friend was found cradling the body
• The available witnesses (to put the theory at its strongest) do not give any indication that the body is not Quentyn
• The witnesses later state to Barristan that there were only four people present after the Windblown fled: Quentyn, Gerris, Arch and one dead, burned person who we know to have been the crossbowman burned by Viserion

• The body was found in the same general area as Frog; and also in the same general area where were 3 nameless masked living non-descript Windblown members one of whom may have been Tatters.  We don't have enough information to be more "exact" than this.  This piece of circumstantial evidence narrows the candidates down to FOUR PEOPLE, only one of whom is Frog.
• We do not know that the BBRM has the same injuries as Frog.  This is a circular argument that starts and ends with the ASSUMPTION that the BBRM is Frog.  Rhaegal has injured people with fire before, and they survived.  Dany was injured and ignited during her encounter with Drogon and she is alive as well.  It is normal to start screaming when you realize you're on fire.  It is not a guarantee of death.
• This is a minor circumstantial point but it might be misdirection.  My guess is that Gerris wanted to slit the BBRM's throat and that Archie was trying to stop him.  There's no good reason for Gerris to be holding that sword.   He did not help beat Frog's flames out, so he's hardly going to fight a dragon.  And he has no intention of fighting any guards either, because he throws his sword away the instant they appear.
• This is an argument from silence.  It has no weight without circumstances indicating they would or should have spoken up.  They have every reason to keep their traps shut or even lie.  GRRM carefully set up those reasons.
• Yes, 4 people were present when the guards arrived including the BBRM.  This does not count as proof that the BBRM is Frog.  It merely restates the assumption and refuses to question it.

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

We see him suffer extensive and ongoing burns. Cut to a body in the same place as Quentyn had been, displaying matching injuries and his friends being upset over that body.

Re-stated more accurately, and without circular arguments and assumptions, the statement should read as follows:

We see Frog catch fire and start screaming.  Cut to a BBRM in the same GENERAL area where Frog and at least 3 other living non-descript masked nameless Windblown members had been, displaying injuries which certainly had not yet fully occurred to Frog when he merely started screaming (he could still see at that point).   Archie is found cradling the BBRM's head, a gesture rendered ambiguous by the fact that Gerris is for some mysterious reason standing over the body with a sword, which he drops the instant the guards come.  Later, when interviewed by Barristan, "false coin" Gerris acts upset; and Archie tells him to dial it back.  Gerris was firmly established in Frog's first chapter as a mummer well practiced in fake grief but incapable of real grief.   Archie, who actually cares about Frog as evidenced by his burnt hands, never shows any grief.

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

If this were a movie or TV series rather than a book, nobody reasonable would be questioning this identification or the editorial choices. A discreet cut-away-from-the-horribly-graphic-injury is pretty standard. 

it's not about "questioning editorial choices".

Fake-outs occur in movies too.  And sometimes viewers think they see the fake-outs coming.  And sometimes (whether due to luck, intuition, or astute observation) their guesses turn out to be correct.

This is like that.  It's a theory. 

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

And if GRRM is inviting the question, I would expect him to invite the question. I'd expect something, from some of the characters, at least expressing some kind of doubt. Missandei, maybe, talking to Barristan as if there's something curious about her patient. Barristan or one of the council mentioning that they are assuming it's the prince based on Gerris and Arch's say-so.

 

In other words, you want an explicit warning.  This is the "GRRM would never fake me out because that would be mean" argument.  Subtle clues are not good enough.

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

An allusion to how Gerris and Arch were a bit shifty and evasive after they were arrested. We get none of this.

We get plenty of it.  I could make a list.  But it is all subtle.  It all has plausible deniability.  So it will not satisfy you. 

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

And no, I don't agree that Gerris and Arch asking to discuss the offer of a potential suicide mission privately before agreeing to it is at all sketchy on their part or reason for any suspicion that they're hiding something.

I'm sure you will say similar things to all the other examples of shiftiness from the A&G that I could cite.

"That does not necessarily mean ..." (etc. etc. etc.).  It is the standard response to any semi-subtle clue that GRRM is half hoping we won't notice, because he want s to surprise us.

And by that standard, I guess Sandor really is dead after all.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

7 hours ago, Springwatch said:

She didn't. She never thought he was the type. She hinted she would bring her dragons to the Dornish rebellion against the IT. Quent read too much into it.

It is true that Dany gave up on Frog as a dragonrider when he started blathering about pink marble.

Otherwise, pretending that Dany did not have this in mind when she led him to the dragonpit is a strange denialism.  But I get it.  This is war for you, and you will not give an inch.

[Sandy Clegg]

43 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

I agree that GRRM does not want us to notice the question.  He is planning to surprise us, so he is none too eager to alert us to the problem.  But he has none the less planted subtle clues so he can claim he has played fair. 

I found a slightly more recent clip - only 8 years ago, but has some fresh details on this theme - that I think everyone discussing the books should keep in the back of their mind:

"The truth is when you're when you're writing a book that has any kind of surprises or mysteries … you lay in certain clues that, let’s say, “the butler did it”. And it's a long series, you lay in the clues and the first one and you have more clues, and maybe a few red herrings, and subsequent ones and  - most readers will not miss that. They will not figure out who did it. They will not even be cognisant there's a mystery, or they will put together the clues wrong. But there will always be some  - and this has always been true   …. who put the clues together and figure out that the butler did it."

https://youtu.be/TB5AU_bCZJg?t=4967

 -  George R. R. Martin, Brown University Library, 2015

He later calls internet theorisers 'smart-asses'. I guess we deserve that ... 

EDIT: this wasn't necessarily in support of Quentyn Alive - I'm still figuring that out in my head. Just a general tip for all of us.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Sandy Clegg

[Gilbert Green]

1 hour ago, Sandy Clegg said:

EDIT: this wasn't necessarily in support of Quentyn Alive - I'm still figuring that out in my head. Just a general tip for all of us.

Yes, in such comments, I don't think we should try to guess what theories he has in mind.  That's always going to be an exercise in confirmation bias.  When he talks of clues, we are always going to think he is referring to our theory.  And when he talks of red herrings, well naturally we will assume he refers to the other guy's theory that we don't like.

And obviously he DOES want to surprise us.  So when he makes such remarks he is going to phrase it in a manner that does not give anything away.  Or maybe even misleads in a subtle way.  It is fair to assume he succeeded.